is RIM "dead man walking"?

Given that as an axiom (no one wants a BB or Symbian or WP smartphone),

This supposed axiom is false. By using the word "axiom", you are directly begging the question.

These alternative products are not having zero sales. They are having low sales which you are ignoring.

If your axiom was true, the competitors would do the rational thing and exit the market.

Instead, they are competing by every reasonable definition of the word, except yours. They just aren't having much success. But, Android has to beat them down, every day.

And, you want loyalty to only be measured at product purchase time as well.

That, too, is false. People show loyalty to a product in many ways. For instance, if a friend says they are considering a particular phone, do they speak up about their own choices, favorably, or keep their mouth shut? More importantly, do they speak disparagingly?

Such loyalty, when positively expressed, can be quite influential. We do, all of us, pay at least some attention to what friends buy.

That's a test of loyalty, too. And, if we worked a while at it, there would be others we could devise, but that's enough in itself to shoot a big hole in your reasoning.

We also have another oddity in your formulation. If I buy a high end Android phone, where effective competition lives with Apple, I am presumed (by your reasoning) to be loyal. But, if I spend maybe 50 or 100 dollars less, I am not, because I've managed to get out of the range where Apple sells phones and where competition is floundering. Yet, I might have chosen one over the other for trifling reasons and not necessarily the dollar difference. I might buy the higher priced one next time. Your "loyalty test" is passed in one case and failed in another, and as a consumer, I never really knew that I was being "tested". You presume, tacitly, that everyone has a single price range when they enter the marketplace. But, many don't.

This is the knots your argument constantly ties us up in. My presumed "loyalty", as you define it, is not based on what I think of the actual product I buy -- it is based on whether others buy other products or not. That's just daft.

And, what happens if the consumer considers, however briefly, a BB instead of an Android. Did they pass your loyalty test or not? Or, does it not count. How? Why? How do you know how many did or did not at least briefly consider the alternatives? All you have is the end result. Once again, you attribute "loyalty" not really on individual behavior, but on inferences that have more to do with the behavior of others than the consumer in question.

In any case, why am I taking your word for it. Elop thinks he is competing with Android.

You're making a categorization error and you're letting it lead you astray. Failing competition is still competition. You're turning low sales of Android's competitors into some sort of metaphysical certainty that does not exist and allowing you to reach inaccurate conclusions about the market.

If other products competed better, would Android's sales suffer? Probably. If Android got better, Apple's probably would as well.

Loyalty, though, is tested a lot of ways and not just at the moment of purchase. Moreover, as you are expressing it, it ends up being a post hoc construct and nothing more than "what did you buy lately". People's relationships with brands and products is more complicated than that on top of everything else.

In Africa, Middle East, and South East Asia, Blackberry is doing just fine. They are even opening a new corporate office here in Egypt for App development in Arabic as their growth here is (apparently) explosive.

There is no knock on Android, but clearly the threshold for RIM and Nokia was crossed as there is a dramatic shift in market share from Symbian and BB to Android and iOS.

By that same measure we have not seen a shift from iOS to Android. YoY it has been stable, mostly, with quarterly dips and rises as new iPhones get released.

So we have a comparative measure right here of iOS vs Android and BB vs Android.

By that metric we also know, qualitatively, that RIM needs to match Apple just to stand it's ground at the high end.

We also know that Apple has consistently outsold the Galaxy S and S2 at the $500+ pricepoint, so it seems reasonable that any OS, RIM or otherwise, that can match Apple at the $600 price can also outsell the competition at lower prices too.

That appears to me the reason why MS, Nokia, RIM, HTC, et all haven't given up.

In Africa, Middle East, and South East Asia, Blackberry is doing just fine. They are even opening a new corporate office here in Egypt for App development in Arabic as their growth here is (apparently) explosive.

The emerging markets are evolving even faster than the developed world. Android will soon be everywhere there too, then what will RIM do?

In Africa, Middle East, and South East Asia, Blackberry is doing just fine. They are even opening a new corporate office here in Egypt for App development in Arabic as their growth here is (apparently) explosive.

The emerging markets are evolving even faster than the developed world. Android will soon be everywhere there too, then what will RIM do?

BB10. The lower end Curve variant is rumoured to be coming out in the summer. And it will be launching in a position of strength in those markets.

It's actually interesting watching what RIM and Nokia are doing. Both are faltering giants with fading marketshare and mindshare. Both were faltering because of failures in evolving their in-house platforms even as they were being eaten while still alive by competitors. While Nokia famously abandoned their in-house platforms and chose to become a third-party OEM for another platform, RIM has doubled down on their in-house platform and is going to sink or swim on their in-house ship. We'll see if one or both companies die and which one lasts longer with their opposing survival strategies.

It's actually interesting watching what RIM and Nokia are doing. Both are faltering giants with fading marketshare and mindshare. Both were faltering because of failures in evolving their in-house platforms even as they were being eaten while still alive by competitors. While Nokia famously abandoned their in-house platforms and chose to become a third-party OEM for another platform, RIM has doubled down on their in-house platform and is going to sink or swim on their in-house ship. We'll see if one or both companies die and which one lasts longer with their opposing survival strategies.

Your measure isn't really loyalty. It is nothing more than "what did I buy last time" and it is expressed by a particular lineup of products at a particular moment of time. But, you're trying to argue "brand" and that is not entirely tied up in product. It is, to be sure, a good indication, but it's not infallible indicator of attitude towards the brand to start with. Not if you're really talking "brand", which, in fact, you are not.

The reason you're not clear is because your argument makes a hash of a great many things.

1. It begs the question in the case of Android's low end.2. It has the unfortunately capacity, particularly as you beg the question for low end Android, of being susceptible to having the apparent loyalty actually depend on things having nothing to do with any given consumer's actual loyalty, but other people's loyalty (or lack of same) to other brands.3. It confuses brand loyalty with recent purchases. Brand loyalty need not be absolute. People can be loyal to a brand in general and purchase it more often than not without necessarily having it be the most recent purchase.

I can play your game too and maybe that will reveal all.

I declare, as arbitrarily as you do, that Android doesn't sell enough on the high end to suit me. It is, by my personal estimation, a failure.

Ergo, Apple has no competition on the high end.

Ergo, it has no loyalty because it has no competition.

Why, it's even axiomatic.

This is your argument, really, in all of its essence. It no doubt looks absurd to you, but that's because it is just as absurd in the case of Android's low end.

Neither you nor I get to arbitrarily declare competition banished because we look at current sales and conclude they don't satisfy us.

Whatever argument you're trying to make, I suggest you reset and start over. First off, drop the whole "loyalty" thing.

All you really seem to be arguing is that if Android had some real competition, it might cut into its sales. You can make that argument without even bringing up "brand" and "loyalty" at all and I think it would improve things.

So if you're trying to "play me", you can't claim Apple has no competition because Android sells a good quarter to third of the smartphones in the high end space.

But say they only sold 10%; then you would be playing me correctly if you said there is no test of Apple's loyalty because there is no competing product good enough to entice an iPhone owner; an iPhone owner is loyal because there is no necessity.

To also play me correctly you would have to use a different input set; say, Nokia, and that it took a good 3 years from 2007 to 2010 before it's share cratered. That then indicates what "loyalty" looks like at the high end since, in 2007, Nokia was the high end.

That's my argument, in essence; map the existing era to examples in a previous era by broad pricing strategy and draw conclusions.

RIM and Nokia were high end in 2007 and took a good three years to crater, and were low end in 2010 before finally getting almost entirely displaced by Android in 2012.

So map Apple of 2012 to RIM or Nokia of 2007, and map the majority of Android (60% or so) to the RIM or Nokia of 2012.

Perhaps you are right though and I'm taking the wrong tack.

I don't even believe Android is a brand, in the way that Windows is, because if it is then it would imply that the Android handsets or mostly interchangeable in the market and that Samsung's current dominance is temporary as other OEMs catch up and we should see them fall from a high of 40% to a more reasonable 25%, with LG moving up to 20%, ZTE or Huwei each at 15%, HTC at 10%, and the remainder of Sony, Motorola, Lenovo, etc taking up the slack of a combined 15% of the Android space.

What I mean is that no OEM other than Google has any reason to promote Android above it's own brand; Sense, Galaxy, Xperia, One, etc. Samsung wants people to buy Galaxy, Sony -> Xperia, HTC -> One, with Android being a sub brand component the same way that Pentile, SLCD, Zeiss, etc are sub brands of components.

So the low end space is driven by consumers who are cost conscious and who will switch to another OEM/vendor/brand/OS/product if it provides better bang for the buck. It's why generic or house brand goods compete against name/advertised brands with lower prices, because they are trying to pull consumers who care more about price than brand.

So if HTC can provide equivalent product to Samsung for a decent bit cheaper, the price conscious should prefer HTC because it's cheaper. Likewise if Nokia or Windows Phone or BB can provide equivalent product to Android but cheaper, the price conscious will move to them. That is the basis of my assertion, but it really is nothing to do with brand but everything to do with the definition of a price conscious consumer.

The high end is a little different because after a certain point there are factors that cause prices to rise; performance, packaging, appearance, logos, and trust that kick such that people buy these products preferentially without considering price nearly as much. You aren't measuring "bang for the buck", so much as "bang". Your requirements are a certain level of performance, or a certain level of support, or a certain hand-feel, or a certain brand image, or a certain cachet.

An example of this is Apple and LG; the Optimus G is to a certain extent equivalent in "bang" to the iPhone 5, with a quad core Krait @1.5GHz, a high perf GPU, beautiful high DPI screen, LTE, and ICS, but due to the lack of LG cachet, sells the 32gb model for $550, while the lower spec (screen, 16gb flash) starts at $650. You need to go to $750 to get 32gb.

So people looking for 'bang for the buck' will see the Optimus G as equivalent to a $750 iPhone 5 but $200 cheaper, while people looking for 'bang' will see the iPhone 5 as being a better choice despite being more expensive, paying more for brand power (Apple vs LG, iOS vs Android), size (4" vs 4.7"), software compatibility (iOS apps vs Android apps), multiple years of OS updates, etc. This is one of those place where there's no obvious competition as no OEM offers as many years of OS updates, offers as much performance in a 4" package, the software selection (though Android is catching up), or the same OS.

The Galaxy S line is actually in a rather similar position, excepting they have a slightly stronger brand and so charge more than LG, but in doing so undersell Apple in any given year.

I don't even believe Android is a brand, in the way that Windows is, because if it is then it would imply that the Android handsets or mostly interchangeable in the market and that Samsung's current dominance is temporary

Now here is a discussion worth having.

I think you have hit on an interesting open question and is the right way to have the discussion I think you wanted to have.

Let me both build and critique my answer to it.

I do believe that Android is or at least can be a real brand even if all the OEMs try and downplay it. A brand isn't only built by advertising and marketing.

It is also built by day-in, day-out experiences.

Sure, to some degree, Samsung in particular is even trying to cover up some of Android and they are interested without question in building up their own brands.

At the end of the day Android is large and in charge of the device, however. There is still plenty of pure Android to be experienced on all of them.

It won't take the typical consumer very long to discover that there is an OS (even the least technically literate knows one is in there, somewhere) and which one they have. So, it really boils down to whether they like the experience and what are the issues, if any, with changing the OS.

And, they won't be unaware that they are experiencing the OS, either. They'll compare notes with their friends and learn that it does make a difference. iOS will show them things their phone can't do, but they can also see things iOS can't do that theirs can. The Samsung owner will even eventually learn about features they use that are extensions to Android by comparing to other Android devices (which, after all, do exist).

Still, the question on the OS remains: Is it really as interchangeable as a pair of socks?

It might be (and it might be for iOS, too). I don't see the same degree of classic lock-in on these devices. The apps are frequently games, many are comparatively trivial. The latter may change, but that's where we were yesterday and are today and I'm going to talk mostly about that. I don't see any app that is like Office and there aren't even things like IDEs on them either. What kind of sophisticated stats packages run on these things yet? So much stuff that could be there and isn't. . .yet. I expect it to change, but it just hasn't really, yet. Maybe Office on RT is the start, but it just isn't a big thing yet.

I see lots of consumption oriented apps; some incredibly useful in the enterprise. But, I don't see a lot of real heavy weight stuff. The kind of thing that ties one to devices, generation after generation. Moreover, if the cloud really takes off and these become "thin clients" then they also become more expendable. And, that's before we consider that a lot of the popular apps (for pay and otherwise) seem to be more and more likely to be on all relevant platforms. Even BB has a decent stable of the "contact your favorite bank with our free app" sort of app -- which I'm on record as being quite important in the mobile world to consumers.

But, there's another tie; ordinary human habit. I've suspected that it may count for more than commonly expected. People like certain key features and on something they carry around all the time like a phone, they may not care to see those key features change.

Still, if I'm wrong about that part, then the OS will count for less than it traditionally has; even one as well-liked as iOS is may be vulnerable even on the high end; high end customers may not be as price sensitive, but they can be seduced by some new shiny (maybe Android's voice commands beats out Siri in some year, for instance) or even by fashion; Apple is aces there right now, but fashion is fickle.

That would make it more about things like hardware, some new feature. . and price. Now, since it has OEMs and Apple doesn't, then Android could be at least somewhat more vulnerable to iOS on this wise. Maybe a lot more, depending.

Basically, if Android can't build up its brand consciousness by its day to day interaction in people's lives, then people will be immensely swayed by other things; cost, especially on the low end; new features, even fashion (the low end could have fashion wars as well).

If they can do so, however, and as long as Android phones cover the entire product line with competitive hardware (on the record, likely) then consumers won't feel pressure to move. Even price conscious consumers don't always go for that last 25 dollars and, in any case, if Android has enough, good OEMs, the Android they want will probably be cheaper, too, just as in the Windows environment.

To me, that's the brand challenge. Build up the brand through daily interaction. It may not work. But, if Android can't build up a brand with a typical handset consumer spending two years with the device, well, it deserves to die. That's a heck of an opportunity to worm your way into someone's life.

And, I think the lack of vocal dissatisfaction and the favorable word of mouth is at least somewhat suggestive that it is working. The question is: Well enough?

Quote:

So the low end space is driven by consumers who are cost conscious and who will switch to another OEM/vendor/brand/OS/product if it provides better bang for the buck. It's why generic or house brand goods compete against name/advertised brands with lower prices, because they are trying to pull consumers who care more about price than brand.

So if HTC can provide equivalent product to Samsung for a decent bit cheaper, the price conscious should prefer HTC because it's cheaper. Likewise if Nokia or Windows Phone or BB can provide equivalent product to Android but cheaper, the price conscious will move to them. That is the basis of my assertion, but it really is nothing to do with brand but everything to do with the definition of a price conscious consumer.

Again, as I've already noted, the "/OS/" part of your equation is the interesting part. Even price conscious consumers aren't absolutely interested in the lowest price. What tends to happen instead is most people come in with a range of dollars to spend. They decide, somehow, that they only want to spend (say) 100 to 200 dollars, subsidized, on the phone. Then they try and find out which has the best bang for the buck and which has the feature set they require as a minimum.

The job of Android is to make itself part of that minimum feature set, one way or another. Then it doesn't matter which phone the consumer buys.

If all the phones were ICS and above, I'd be willing to say "mission accomplished". I've got an ICS phone and I gotta tell you, it's seductive. The things I really care about; the maps, the integration with the browser; things like that are top notch. Not as important, but maybe more so later is the Google cloud. Some nice, well-integrated services there, though there are some gaps (Google Drive is not good enough on my phone or my tablet). But, a lot of Android phones are of the 2.2ish vintage. Android's biggest short term problem may be to convert people to the better more "modern" OS of ICS or Jelly Bean or whatever comes next. If they fail here, especially when WP8 comes out, there could be some unexpected trouble for Android that I haven't looked for.

But, if they make that transition, then I don't think Android has any real worries even if Apple has more satisfied customers. It only has to keep beating out the lesser competitors that it has, so far, been badly beating.

I also think there really is a question as to whether Samsung's lead in the Android space is permanent.

My take: OSes are cumulative and there's already a fair bit of function in Android. So far, I don't see any indication that Samsung is doing more than a little skimming -- adding a few extensions and a few attention grabbing features. But, until it really steps up to the plate and really does some sort of fork (not in prospect, and I don't think likely) then it won't be long before its ability to do significant differentiation will fade. It will make a lot of noise, but I think it will always be looking over its shoulder and more so, not less, as the years roll on, because it will be harder, not easier, to differentiate.

If it is going to do the real fork that certain people around here have the wet dreams about, it had better do so mighty fast. The window of opportunity to really do that in an effective way is very likely closing because every new Android release raises the bar in terms of what you have to replace both locally and in the remote services behind it. I don't see Samsung excited about the former and it is even less likely to play in the back end where Google is already strong and Samsung essentially starting from scratch.

In Africa, Middle East, and South East Asia, Blackberry is doing just fine. They are even opening a new corporate office here in Egypt for App development in Arabic as their growth here is (apparently) explosive.

You need first world markets to survive. RIM will continue to bleed money till business picks up in North America and Western Europe. RIM made their money with huge corporate and government accounts in these markets. Lots of this business is probably lost forever. They have never really been a consumer driven company. It takes a heck of a lot of consumers to make up for even one large lost corporate customer.

They have a plan, they are just executing it really poorly. It astonishes me that they could release the Playbook in Spring 2011 and then fail to deliver a phone with a similar OS at any point in 2011 or 2012.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) said it will end its contract with BlackBerry maker Research In Motion Ltd in favor of Apple Inc's iPhone, dealing a new blow to RIM just months before it launches a vital new device.

The agency said in a solicitation document posted last week that it intends to buy iPhones for more than 17,600 employees - a purchase worth $2.1 million.

The agency said it has relied on RIM for eight years, but the company "can no longer meet the mobile technology needs of the agency."

Another big government contract bites the dust. RIM's traditional customers are getting off the sinking ship and they're not going to come back for BB10 v1.0.

Considering that they added 2 million new subs last quarter I don't think they're all that worried about 17,600 users, though it is definitely a worrying trend for them when a supposedly security focused organization chooses iOS. I assume they will be shelling out far more than they pay now for BES on a third party MDM package like Good to manage and secure their iPhones?

Considering that they added 2 million new subs last quarter I don't think they're all that worried about 17,600 users, though it is definitely a worrying trend for them when a supposedly security focused organization chooses iOS. I assume they will be shelling out far more than they pay now for BES on a third party MDM package like Good to manage and secure their iPhones?

The article mentions, "consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton said it was dropping BlackBerry and switching to iPhone and Android smartphones for its staff of around 25,000."

So it's really 43,600 users.

Also, you can't assume anything about how much more, or less, they are spending.

All you can assume is that RIM just lost approximately $25m or so in revenue.

I can guarantee you that Booz Allen Hamilton does not issue 25,000 smartphones to it's employees. That is just the number of employees they have from janitors to secretaries. Easy on the spin, I'm about to the watch the presidential debate on my PVR and sure I will get enough spin from that

You can't assume how many of them had BB phones before either, so please don't when making up revenue numbers.

What's all this carping about? I'm just happy to see something that indicates BB10 will at least ship. For a while, I doubted that (and perhaps I still have a few lingering doubts). It had the sound of a project that was never exiting test a while back.

There is a simulator used for development available from RIM that at least gives you a basic idea of what the new OS is like (for use with VMWare).

The first version looked a lot like the Playbook OS, but the latest (Beta 3) is completely different (as shown in the video). Spent a small amount of time looking into what it would take to develop for BBOS 10, but now that I am on Mountain Lion the developer tools seem very unstable.

Don't get me wrong. They're still doomed. But if that had come out a year ago before all their marketshare already bailed to other ecosystems... yow.

They increased their subscribers by 2 million last quarter. The US market is not the world market...which in fact is even bigger than the US market, but whatever. You gotta say what you gotta say. 8 million new subs in a year is not keeping pace with the general market growth, but it is still growing by any definition of math. 8-10% growth in subs in a year is still growth, imagine if such a powerful worldwide brand had actually introduced a new phone or two this year

But if that had come out a year two years ago before all their marketshare already bailed to other ecosystems... yow.

This product is really, really late. Even a year ago, Android was already well-established and with fantastic momentum. As I recall, they were doing a "mere" 500,000 activations a day a year ago. Now double or triple, but still, would you want to be facing Android at 1.5 mill activations per day, 500K, or 200K?

Wow. I don't know what to say. Was that really their flagship BBM app? Granted, some of the UI interactions looked good (although somewhat confusing with all the options), but it was really embarrassing how much they had stolencopied been inspired by Android when it comes to how the GUI looks. The in-app icons looked exactly like they do in JB, and the rest of the app interface also looked strikingly similar to JB apps. I actually thought for a while that this was one of those Android apps quickly converted to BB10 that are possible to do. And isn't the OS supposed to be almost ready?

Also, what's up with the multiple settings? You could swipe some in from the top. You could tap and hold to get some other. You could tap the Android menu button (vertical dots) to get even more. Wee.

But if that had come out a year two years ago before all their marketshare already bailed to other ecosystems... yow.

This product is really, really late. Even a year ago, Android was already well-established and with fantastic momentum. As I recall, they were doing a "mere" 500,000 activations a day a year ago. Now double or triple, but still, would you want to be facing Android at 1.5 mill activations per day, 500K, or 200K?

That's the difference being late makes.

This is the biggest reason I don't get the True Believers who think Blackberry or Windows Phone will rise from the ashes and conquer everything. The amount of momentum that iOS and Android have developed is now as inevitable as gravity pulling you back towards the Earth.

This is the biggest reason I don't get the True Believers who think Blackberry or Windows Phone will rise from the ashes and conquer everything. The amount of momentum that iOS and Android have developed is now as inevitable as gravity pulling you back towards the Earth.

Well at least MS has lots of money and experience in different platforms (Windows, Xbox etc). The problem isn't momentum so much as ecosystem. Apple's got the iTunes store for apps and media lock-in. Google's strong suit is search, maps and cloud. MS has got lots of money and experience in many of the same areas so if anyone has a shot they do but what exactly does RIM bring to the table anymore, and if they do have something unique to offer do they have the resources to develop and market it against two entrenched juggernauts and a 3rd one trying to claw their way back into relevance. If MS wasn't the odd man out this time I'd say RIM had a chance but at this point I don't see how they get and traction against those big three.

I mean just look at market cap:

RIM = $4BAppl= $566BGoog=$222BMSFT=$237B

I mean market cap ain't everything for sure but RIM is a rounding error to those other companies at this point and they all have very very deep pockets and can afford to make many mistakes whereas RIM can't have a single major misstep at all.

But if that had come out a year two years ago before all their marketshare already bailed to other ecosystems... yow.

This product is really, really late. Even a year ago, Android was already well-established and with fantastic momentum. As I recall, they were doing a "mere" 500,000 activations a day a year ago. Now double or triple, but still, would you want to be facing Android at 1.5 mill activations per day, 500K, or 200K?

That's the difference being late makes.

This is the biggest reason I don't get the True Believers who think Blackberry or Windows Phone will rise from the ashes and conquer everything. The amount of momentum that iOS and Android have developed is now as inevitable as gravity pulling you back towards the Earth.

"Never" is a word that you should...erm, never use in the technology industry. Not that you're using it, but the idea that iOS and Android are all we'll ever have seems pretty silly.

Yeah but Apple was a computer/OS company that leveraged that to enter/change the digital music player market with the iPod and then the mobile market with the iPhone and then the tablet market with the iPad. RIM is trying to fight their way back to relevance in a much more mature mobile market not spreading its wings into other markets that needed some change. Where are RIM's big opportunities to revolutionize things? Where is their big vision for the future?